HARRISBURG – A federal judge will issue a ruling soon on whether or not the Susquehanna Township School District will have to pay for the remaining legal fees accrued by its former superintendent over a lawsuit filed against her by two school board members.

Her attorney, Jason Kutulakis, told the judge Tuesday since the motion seeking sanctions was filed, he has been paid by the district for his services up until March 4, the date board members Jesse Rawls Sr. and Mark Sussman withdrew their suit.

He argued, however, he is still owed attorney’s fees from then on, and the court may rule additional sanctions are appropriate over the suit filed against his client in November.

Jones ordered Kutulakis to submit within 10 days details on any fees that he is owed, and his best evidence of what he believes is the school board’s refusal to pay. And Bret Keisling, the attorney for Rawls and Sussman, has 10 days after that to file any objections before the judge comes back with a ruling.

Rawls and Sussman filed their suit Nov. 25, claiming that Kegerise’s contract and its enforcement violated their First Amendment rights, as well as federal and state law.

They filed an amended complaint in January, dropping the school district and school board from the suit, leaving Kegerise as the sole party. But on March 4,the two withdrew their suit against Kegerise. They announced this in an emailed statement the previous day, and said they were dropping the suit because the reasons for filing it had been “corrected as result of community and media interest in this case and recent events.”

Kegerise then filed a motion to seek the sanctions March 19 claiming the suit was filed for an improper purpose without legal basis, claiming Rawls and Sussman “admit that their federal litigation was brought for political purposes and community influences” in their statement.

Her motion stated, “no community nor media interests could remedy the factual allegations nor alleged causes of action which gave rise to the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.” The two board members violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, her motion stated, and asked the court to grant Rule 11 sanctions including attorney’s fees and other expenses resulting from the alleged violation.

She said Rawls and Sussman’s amended complaint had “numerous factual inaccuracies” intended to paint her as a villain in the media, and it was filed as an attempt to harass Kegerise in a public setting.

And that Rawls and Sussman’s announcement of their pending lawsuit came days before the November election showed it was done for political purposes to influence the election, the motion stated.

Rawls was called to the stand first on Tuesday, and denied the allegations when they were brought up by Kutulakis as he built the case of a Rule 11 violation.

Rawls denied the press conference was politically motivated, and said he had answered questions when he was asked by the media, but he never reached out himself.

Though there was a time span between the announcement and the filing, his attorney told the court he had been working diligently on the case, and Rawls and Sussman were not responsible for any logistical delays between the announcement and the suit being filed.

Rawls added on the stand he believed the complaint they filed was a valid one.

Also testifying Tuesday was school board member Kathy DelGrande, who was present the day of the press conference. She testified she was in the back office that day, and Keisling came back to speak to Kegerise. He told the former superintendent he has two children who have gone through the district, and said he knows the success of the children is in part due to the administration, but soon former school-district attorney Paul Blunt approached, and an argument broke out.

But Keisling uncovered through testimony he was respectful to the former superintendent, and did not act inappropriately. Things only escalated between himself and Blunt, he said.

Sussman was called to the stand to testify, as well, and also said the suit was not filed for political reasons, but for the alleged Constitutional violations.

When Kutulakis asked if he thought in withdrawing his suit that another filing in Dauphin County Court barring the two plaintiffs from discussing, voting or receiving information on the federal suit would fall away, Sussman said it was withdrawn mainly so he would have the ability to govern as a school board member again.

While Jones will come back with a ruling on the sanctions after both parties have a chance to file their briefs, another case is pending. Kegerise had filed her own $6 million constructive termination lawsuit against the district and three of its board members.

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.